General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question For The Class: Wouldn't This Be The Perfect Moment To Re-Introduce The ERA ??? [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, sex discrimination in employment is still illegal in Wisconsin. It violates federal law, and anyone aggrieved by a violation can seek redress through the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, if unsuccessful there, in federal court. As I understand the Wisconsin situation, there was formerly an additional avenue through state courts, which some people would find quicker and easier than the federal process. Walker's action merely removed the latter option. This will presumably make enforcement of nondiscrimination more difficult, and is yet another reason to recall Walker, but women in Wisconsin shouldn't think that they're no longer protected against employment discrimination.
Second, the ERA wouldn't change any of this. It would apply only to discrimination by the government, not by private employers. By analogy, consider the history of the law relating to racial discrimination. In 1954, the Supreme Court held that racial discrimination by government, in the form of segregation in public schools, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Nevertheless, it was still legal for private employers to refuse to hire blacks, for restaurants to refuse to serve them, etc. That didn't change until the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
The bottom line is that sex discrimination in employment is statutory, not constitutional. It's prohibited by the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act, with or without an ERA. If the ERA were enacted but those statutes were repealed, the repeal would not violate the ERA, and sex discrimination by private employers would be legal even with the ERA as part of the Constitution.